posted
I was wondering when you'd join the party, Phelps.
I don't recall the circular impulse engines ever not being lit. At least not when the ship's powered. I can't say for definite though.
I have grown to accept Drexler's impulse engines. I believe the ship has two sets of impulse engines - The Drexlers in the tail and the std red glowy ones. The explanation in the DS9TM seems reasonable. That is, the red glowy engines are somehow interconnected to the warp engine/core (not unlike the TMP Ent-refit), and the Drexler engines are a completely redundant and independant backup.
Regarding the bridge phaser emitter: It does appear in "Shattered Mirror" that the dome is the origin of the beams. It's not perfectly clear in the VFX but it's certainly the most probable location. At any rate, there's not anything else in that area that it could be.
quote:Originally posted by Phelps: Mojo...You're in good company with Mike Okuda and Andrew Probert.
Brian Fisher, who did the model for "Sacrifice of Angels", was the first to raise some panels here and there, give the ship some three-dimensionality.
You gotta be careful about that...Mr. Pronert pointed out to me that in a quest to put detail to the 4-foot Galaxy class model someone forgot to say attention to the scale and some of the seurface plates are so thick they'd stick off the full 4 feet! hahaha
Likewise, many times the painters/texture artists don't pay much attention to the scale of the object and logic...the original Excelsior paint job had parts of the hull covered with plates that would be only a meter or two across...no one builds ship hulls out of pieces that tiny.
-------------------- "Well, I mean, it's generally understood that, of all of the people in the world, Mike Nelson is the best." -- ULTRA MAGNUS, steadfast in curmudgeon
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Phelps: Mojo...You're in good company with Mike Okuda and Andrew Probert.
Brian Fisher, who did the model for "Sacrifice of Angels", was the first to raise some panels here and there, give the ship some three-dimensionality.
You gotta be careful about that...Mr. Probert pointed out to me that in a quest to put detail to the 4-foot Galaxy class model someone forgot to say attention to the scale and some of the seurface plates are so thick they'd stick off the hull 4 feet! hahaha
Likewise, many times the painters/texture artists don't pay much attention to the scale of the object and logic...the original Excelsior paint job had parts of the hull covered with plates that would be only a meter or two across...no one builds ship hulls out of pieces that tiny.
-------------------- "Well, I mean, it's generally understood that, of all of the people in the world, Mike Nelson is the best." -- ULTRA MAGNUS, steadfast in curmudgeon
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Dax: the holes aren't lit in the aft-torp-launch moment of "Shattered Mirror", and a few other fight scenes, IIRC.
mrneutron: Since you know Mr. Probert in person, I'm sure any comparison somebody makes will raise a few warning signs with you. That's perfectly understandable, but I wasn't being so specific -- I was thinking of Probert's adherence to the then-official Star Fleet Technical Manual when doing the Enterprise, which says a lot about his respect for fans and fandom.
posted
I let Andrew do what he wanted to on the Defiant. I see test renders as it's going, and I give him my input, but he's such a good modeler and Trek fan, I know he's going to do the best job possible in whatever he builds.
Anyone who builds a model is going to make is slightly differently than anyone else - each one of you would make a unique model that everyone else could nitpick if they wanted - this Defiant is Andrew's and, as far as I'm concerned, is the best of both worlds (heh heh).
I am going to ask him to add the self-lighting as seen in "The Seach," however. I didn't even realize they dumped it after that episode. All Starfleet ships should have that. I am especially fond of the look of the Enterprise in The Motion Picture, and I think it's a shame that no one since Doug Trumble could be bothered to light it quite the same ever again.
Of, course, with CG that's not an issue. If the models were meant to be lit that way but it was neglected due to budgetary concerns, I say it goes back in!
The CG TOS Enterprise that Daren Dochterman built (and I use for these projects) has a small difference - the round, white 'ping pong balls' on the back of the engines are luminous in the CG model, although they weren't on the show. Gene wanted them to be lit, but they simply ran out of time and money. It makes sense to have them luminous, as an implied power source as part of the engine, and I think it looks much better that way, so there you go.
Daren also told me Gene wanted the inside-facing part of the nacelles to have the all-familiar blue glow that was present from the Motion Picture onward, but that also was left out due to practical concerns.
Oh yea, and I don't feel like I deserve to be mentioned in the same sentance as Okuda and Probert, but I appreciate the sentiment.
Just read the reviews of the 2002 calendar - that will change ANYONE'S mind as to my standing :-)
Let's wait until the book comes out before we compare me to ANYTHING!
posted
And about the out-of-scale hull details on the Ent-D: that might explain why in some (very few) epsiodes, methinks from Season 4 or 5 onward, they showed a front view of the Ent and it looked horrible. Not at all like in the rest of the series. The escape pods seemed to be raised extremely high.
-------------------- Lister: Don't give me the "Star Trek" crap! It's too early in the morning. - Red Dwarf "The Last Day"
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
are we referring to the differences between the 6 ft. E-D model used in the first 2 or 3 seasons and the more detailed but smaller 4 ft model used season 3-4 onward? i found the differences highly notable, even though im a tech geek and probably few other people realized the switch.. i also noticed when the took out the long model again for Generations, because it was bigger for the movie cameras.
I think one of the main goals of the second model was to raise up the surface detailing more.. ill try to find a decent comparison..
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Well, the thing you have to remember about surface detailing is the way it looks when you're sitting there looking at the studio model vs. the way it looks on screen. The artists who make it most likely don't care about how the model looks in a room with incandescent lighting. Their goal is to make it look cool on the screen where those hull lines and textures are going to be just big enough to register.
On the movie screen, you can be more subtle because you've got a bigger screen to work with.
posted
Jeager's Akira-Class. I've talked to him about it several times. It turns out its not all that more complicated then mine, but others have modified it since he made it so I dunno.
Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Mojo: Daren also told me Gene wanted the inside-facing part of the nacelles to have the all-familiar blue glow that was present from the Motion Picture onward, but that also was left out due to practical concerns.
Yeah, it really kind of bothered me when I opened up the Starship Spotter and there were no blue lights on the inward faces of the nacelles. It really should be there.
quote: i also noticed when the took out the long model again for Generations, because it was bigger for the movie cameras.
IIRC, they used the 6-foot model for Generations because its saucer was designed to be removable to film the saucer separation sequence in the pilot, whereas the 4-foot model was not built to do this.
-------------------- The difference between genius and idiocy? Genius has its limits.
Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
well i noticed. right away, because the models look different.
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
I liked the season 3 4' model - it looked less plain and more realistic - the added texture just made it... better! That's why it was good for Generations they stripped that 6' and gave her a nice new paint job. Speaking of those running lights, Mojo - I think they added them in for Generations - I'll have to check some pictures... cause they were never present on the E-D during the series... there were I recall the running lights/flood lights on the Hathaway in "Peak Performance".
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
posted
Regarding the surface detailing on the 1701-D:
I understand completely about wanting details that look right and give the object scale. My objection to the 4-foot miniature is that the surface detailing (to my eye) actually diminishes the ship's size.
A big problem with the 6-foot miniture was that in the first few seasons of the shows the effects people never lit it very well, so it rarely looked very good. I do recall a few shots where they got some interesting lighting that caused all the aztec paneling to pop out as the saucer slid by the camera, and I always felt THAT look made the ship look bigger than the raised detailing even did. Sadly, I only recall a few shots where they lit it like this.
One other thing about the 4-foot model, it always looked chunkier and less graceful to me than the 6-footer. I don't think the proportions are the same. It looks like the ship needs some Ultra-Slim-Fast antimatter.
[ January 11, 2002: Message edited by: mrneutron ]
-------------------- "Well, I mean, it's generally understood that, of all of the people in the world, Mike Nelson is the best." -- ULTRA MAGNUS, steadfast in curmudgeon
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic